January 8, 2013

And let's try to think deeply about gender politics. There's something distinctive about the argument — coming from females — that we will withhold sex unless you give us something we want. The argument, even as joke, assumes the audience grasps the notion sex is not intrinsically valuable to women. It's currency to be used to purchase something else.

In contrast to the idea of women exercising power by withholding sex is the idea that men seek political power to get sex. "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" is something famously said by a man who looked liked this:

That's Henry Kissinger in his younger days. Think he would have had much political success saying do what I want or I won't have sex with you? No. It was the other way around for him. By acquiring power he became seductive.

Perhaps men have had such success reaching high positions of political power because of their sexual drive. If sexual energy propels their climb to power, it's surprising women ever win elections. Why bother? I mean, really. Why bother? They must really want political power as an end in itself. And... well, there's this:

72 comments:

Also, consider that most men recognize this, innately, at about 13 years old. We may not understand the reasons for it until we're a bit older, but we recognize the situation and begin shaping our lives around it very early.

The same Barbara Boxer who went on a tear about how dangerously conservative Alito was, only to cognitively disassociate herself with the next caller, who asked if Boxer was a liberal or a conservative.

She didn't believe in labels, you see, and was just Barbara Boxer.

1) Invent playing field - check2) Place political opponents on that playing field and criticize them for being on it - check3) When asked where you exist on the same field, diefy yourself by claiming to exist above/beyond/whatever - check, check checkity check

Oh, I don't know. The ukelele was kinda' sexy but then I'm an ersatz musician. Other than the make-up I don't see a lot of difference in the looks of the yester-year temperance girls and the modern equivalent you posted yesterday. Women may strike the pose of no sex unless you do as I bid but in reality, "it just happened!" is a more realistic happenstance if the man, the moment, the time and place are right. You know the old saw, women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.

I'd like to see someone report on the extent that political correctness and the demise of what I think of as adults in leadership positions especially as it relates to our debt and excessive spending, the continued weakening of our foreign policy is due the addition of so many women into leadership positions the last sixty years. Yeah, I blame it on women.

The Prohibition ladies weren't trying to be funny; they were dead serious (as if you couldn't guess).

Ann Althouse said...

Perhaps men have had such success reaching high positions of political power because of their their sexual drive. If sexual energy propels their climb to power, it's surprising women ever win elections

Don't blame the Administration then. They are in hot water because they put three men into three option cabinet slots and are taking the dubious "we picked the most qualified candidate" route...always the more dangerous road to tread.

I'm not sure if showing an example of one of the more odious female politicians is an entirely fair place to start a discussion on why women want to go into politics, but I think women's motivations aren't that terribly far removed from mens.

If there is any sort of difference it probably has more to do with a sense of control and organization that women seem to be concerned with a bit more than men versus the whole getting laid thing that obviously more of a factor for men.

What's really hilarious about the Boxer statement is, as any military officer can tell you, one calls one's superiors "Sir" or "Ma'am" as a sign of respect, and the title, "Captain," "Colonel," "General" as a sign of disrespect.

No doubt BG Walsh got high fives and huge grins from fellow officers when he arrived back at the Pentagon after testifying.

"Don't blame the Administration then. They are in hot water because they put three men into three option cabinet slots and are taking the dubious "we picked the most qualified candidate" route...always the more dangerous road to tread."

Hillery Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Valerie Jarrett just to name a few women who are more than deserving of blame for our recent history.

"What's really hilarious about the Boxer statement is, as any military officer can tell you, one calls one's superiors "Sir" or "Ma'am" as a sign of respect, and the title, "Captain," "Colonel," "General" as a sign of disrespect."

It is unimaginable that any man in a prior era wouldn't have known that and I doubt that any man in political office today wouldn't know it.

Why do conservative women go into politics, though? For "liberal" women, it's easy. Their good intentions are presumed and opposition is dismissed as SEXISTRACIST. Blatant obvious Klownfraudulence is overlooked and excused. (See, e.g., Fauxcahontas, Claire McCaskill, Maxine Waters, Patty Nitwit in Washington State whose name I forget ETC ETC.) Once in office, the palace guard protects them. Rules are bent. They don't have to testify if they're not feeling one hundred percent superduper. They don't have to debate opponents. (See, Dianne 2012.) They needn't even have a credible platform when they "run" for office. (See, Dianne 2012.) In fact, "running" for office is undignified, unladylike. AS IF! Once in office, they follow the pre-ordained Rules of Progressivism. Everyone (who matters) wins! Haha. Heehee.In contrast, conservative women are examined anthropologically. Girlillas in the Mist. Gynecologically if they really pose a real threat. (Palin.) They are under attack all the time. A bad photo is a personal indictment. Who would submit themselves to this process if not a true believer? Or someone a bit naively overconfident? (Palin.) Both?

Amartel said... This dumb broad. Well, one good thing I can say about Dianne Feinstein is that at least she's not Barbara Boxer.

Dianne is a an sF Liberal, and it shows, but she served as mayor and is grounded in reality. She takes the chairmanship of the intel committee seriously and will push back at obama. Babs is an idiot and hack. pure and simple.

Tim said... What's really hilarious about the Boxer statement is, as any military officer can tell you, one calls one's superiors "Sir" or "Ma'am" as a sign of respect,

normally that 'General' stuff is done by SGTs, because everybody knows it's disrepectful, and officers will put up with it from SGTs, but squash a junior officer. Worse is the direct, third person reference.

I was maybe a sophomore in high school and there was this extremely cute senior who had a lapel button on her handbag that read "Lips that touch alcohol shall never touch mine."

I'd never heard that one before and it made a big impression.

I was very anti-alcohol at the time, and the button made me think we were kindred spirits, even though I barely knew her, she being several orders of magnitude above me.

Anyway, it was no more than a week or two later that I saw her steady boyfriend absolutely, stinking sloppy drunk, totally blotto, which came as an extra-special shock since he was an all-state soccer player.

The two of them were still boyfriend-and-girlfriend for months afterwards.

The best I could figure out was that she liked getting shit-faced too and the button was a gag.

Wasn't there a discussion here about this temperance poster at some point? The women (and men?) in the poster are mocking the temperance/anti-saloon movement by mugging and posing as presumptuous temprunes. You're not getting any of this, mister drunkypants! Woo.The conservatives of their day, these intemperate women.

I think that might be one of the points Kubrick was trying to get across in "Eyes Wide Shut"

Wait, wait, wait...are you seriously suggesting that movie had a point?

Besides, the only way a game of chicken works is if neither side really knows what the other is thinking. As far as gender and sex is concerned, women can comfortably assume they know what we're thinking 99% of the time.

And, just in case you didn't think God has a sublime sense of humor...that 1% of the time when we're actually NOT thinking about it and NOT really in the mood...they get insulted.

Dianne has, or had, a brain and a core. That I respect. Also, her actions way (way) back in the day when she was mayor and had real responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. Time passes and things change. It's like I respect someone who has served in the military but I still judge them on their present actions. Dianne's gun bill is a politically opportunistic farce. Her "opposition" to Obama's excesses is words-only. She'll let him off the hook at the end of the day. She turned into a progressive. Party uber alles.

But you have to imagine the guys of that time not pictured immediately grabbing their wine bottles and taking huge exaggerated swigs pouring all over their shirts sloshing wine all over the place laughing their asses off.

"In contrast, conservative women are examined anthropologically. Girlillas in the Mist. Gynecologically if they really pose a real threat. (Palin.) They are under attack all the time. A bad photo is a personal indictment. Who would submit themselves to this process if not a true believer? Or someone a bit naively overconfident? (Palin.) Both?"

I like conservative women but conservative positions are more closely related to the fathers who are more likely to turn off the lights, balance the checkbook, worry about not spending to much money, issue tough love, provide security. There is a reason the Republican party is called the daddy party and the Dems the mommy party, the Dems want to feel our pain, they want to make sure we don't say something that will hurt someone's feelings and just like a good mother they really worry about our safety, unfortunately not as it relates to our national defense but in terms of our recreational pursuits and everyday activities, not to forget food and drink. Plus, they like to spend money.

"Weren't they the feminists of their day, they had good intentions but like all liberals, the possible unintended consequences were never considered."

I'd argue that the temperance ladies were the progressives of their day. Banning alcohol to cut down on drunkeness is like banning guns to cut down on school shootings. It's a simple-minded solution, does not address the real problem, and only the criminals will continue to enjoy the advantage of utilizing the banned product. Thus, I would argue that the people mocking the temperance ladies were the conservatives of their day. They wanted to go back to the way things were.

Dreams, your thoughts about male/female republican/democrat are very old-fashioned and at the same time, at least judging from the results of the last election, more true than not. Women's lib, my foot! A greater percentage of women voted for a Daddy/boyfriend government that would give them and their families stuff than for independence and self-sufficiency. All I'll say is that it's crucial not to lump all women into this category. I know plenty of women who don't buy into this nonsense. Also, I respect, not just like, conservative women who put themselves out there even and despite the non-stop hostility. No friendly fire, please. We can't afford it.

Perhaps men have had such success reaching high positions of political power because of their their sexual drive. If sexual energy propels their climb to power, it's surprising women ever win elections. Why bother? I mean, really. Why bother? They must really want political power as an end in itself.

Alternative theory: Female politicians sexual energy propels their climb to power, too, but they never figured out men aren't as attracted to power as women.

Scott M "And, just in case you didn't think God has a sublime sense of humor...that 1% of the time when we're actually NOT thinking about it and NOT really in the mood...they get insulted." The Universe is indifferent to your inability to fake it

Maybe its not just politics where a woman might see the fulfillment of her desires as the measure of men's worthiness. Was thinking about this topic recently as I finished Bel Canto by Ann Patchett in which all the men are but moths around the candle of an opera singer. She chooses to bed the richest one of the lot and he winds up shot dead trying to protect her. Then she marries the translator who arranged her trysts. Many other examples. Gotta wonder if the numbers of screwed up young men spawned by our public schools reflects their inability to thrive in an environment subject to the dynamics of a disproportionately female teaching population.

Actually it is not the case at all the women do not value sex in and of itself. Normal women value and enjoy sex just as much as any normal man.

The key difference is in how men and women approach sex.

Men are interested in sex with pretty much any woman who is reasonably attractive (physically, mentally, and psychologically). Some men aren't even that picky.

Women on the other hand, are almost exclusively interested in sex with the right kind of man. What constitutes the right kind of man can vary from one woman to the next, but generally speaking girls like alpha males. A powerful man, regardless of physicality, is extremely attractive to women. Incidentally this is also why they go for Bad Boy types. Bad Boys are rebels. They challenge the existing power structure, hence they are attractive to women.

A woman is not going to withhold sex from the man she is sexually involved with any more than a man would withhold sex from Adriana Lima. She might say no short term, but long term she'd be no more willing to hold out than the man would.

If a woman is attempting to use sexual bribery or blackmail on you, it means she does not view you as the right kind of man. If she ever does have sex with you, it will only be to get something else that she wants. She isn't interested in YOU at all. If you're involved with someone like that then dump her, ditch her, and don't look back because a woman like that is a manipulative user who wants others to do for her what she can and should do for herself. She doesn't value herself or her talents. She only sees value in the hole between her legs. The only way to deal with such a woman is to avoid her.

Men and women seek political office for the same reason: power. But power represents different things to men and women? Sex v. security? Sinecure seems to apply to both sexes and all parties.

Is there a further distinction between what power represents to liberal politicians v. conservative politicians? Sex and security are denied to conservative politicians.Conservative female politicians do not get heightened security, they get heightened scrutiny. Same with the men. And woe betide the conservative male, or female, who Has Sex. All conservative pols are conventionally presumed to be asexual prudes, closet cases, baby factories, or else, Hypocrisy!!! Scott Brown got endless amounts of shit for looking hot with his clothes off 20 years ago. Sarah Palin was vivisected for being a hawt sexy beast. Convention would have you believe the conservative is the po-faced fun-denying unsexy temperance prude but the only people pushing that myth are lefties.

The first photo reminds me of another Wizard of Id cartoon. The Wizard's wife was really mad at him. He had sold her picture to a winery and they had put it in a billboard with the slogan "Lips that touch wine will never touch mine."

the audience grasps the notion sex is not intrinsically valuable to women. It's currency to be used to purchase something else.

That doesn't make much sense. Just because you know something has extrinsic value doesn't mean you think it lacks intrinsic value.

There isn't an adult woman in America who hasn't figured out sex can be used to manipulate men. That's the explicit message behind the cliched maternal advice of "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free".

And let's not forget that then-Representative Barbie Boxer earned herself the nickname "Barbie Bouncer" for being one of the top check-kiters in the House banking scandal, where a number of (mostly but not exclusively) Dem reps wrote hundreds of over-balance checks.

In general, when people consider sex an economic transaction, it is usually called prostitution.

When it is used to coerce someone to support a particular idea, it is a weapon. When one partner in a relationship has a weapon to control what the other member of that relationship believes, thinks or supports, the relationship has ceased to be voluntary.

Before I got married, I had this discussion with my wife to be, and got assurance that sex would never be used as a weapon. Fortunately, her word was good, and we've been happily married for 36 years. She is my best friend.